SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22

Nov/24/22 3:12:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday marked National Housing Day, and I am proud to say that it was this government that legislated the recognition of housing as a human right. Since its launch, the national housing strategy has invested upward of $72 billion to ensure that every Canadian has a roof over their head. Could the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion tell this House about the work our government has done and continues to do for Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

85 words

Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 3:13:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his strong advocacy on this issue. Since coming into office, we have had historic investments to create and repair over 440,000 homes across the country. We are not stopping there. Earlier this month, I launched the third round of the rapid housing initiative, which will ensure an additional 4,500 deeply affordable homes for the most vulnerable across the country. We believe, on this side of the House, that housing is a human right, and we will not rest until each and every Canadian has access to a safe and affordable place to call home.

106 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Nov/24/22 3:14:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been failing veterans for years. The minister has refused to hire permanent staff to support veterans, has suspended services for over a month and is now delegating tasks to a private company owned by Loblaws for hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, VAC has delayed the contract rollout because workers have not been properly trained. This is a crisis. Veterans deserve so much better. Why is the minister putting profits ahead of care for our veterans and their families, and will he stop this botched contract?

91 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 3:14:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain to the House why this is a totally unacceptable and irresponsible question. This new contract will give 14,000 veterans access to 9,000 medical services staff, and there will be 600 offices available to them. This will also allow our case managers to reduce their administrative time and have more time to spend with our veterans.

63 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/24/22 3:15:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for years the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands have had the pristine environment where they live, on the shores of the Salish Sea, contaminated by polluting commercial anchorages, which is essentially free parking for freighters. Since last month, the Port of Vancouver has been holding what it calls public consultation. The constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands do not feel consulted. They once again feel ignored, as the Port of Vancouver tells them these anchorages are essential to the Port of Vancouver instead of figuring out how to make the Port of Vancouver efficient.

97 words

Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 3:16:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have seen global supply disruptions that have impacted our supply chains at home. Because of that, we have seen congestion at airports and an increased number of vessels anchored next to our coast. I have been listening to constituents on the coast, particularly where the hon. colleague is raising the point. I want to assure her that we are putting together an action plan to address this. We tabled Bill C-33 just two weeks ago. It will introduce new tools to help mitigate the traffic of the vessels. We will work with her and constituents to make sure that we manage this adequately.

113 words

The Speaker

Nov/24/22 3:16:52 p.m.
Watch

I am afraid that is all the time we have for question period today. I will ask everyone to take a deep breath and, if they have a conversation, they can take it into the lobby. In the meantime, I believe the hon. opposition House leader has a question today.

50 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (House leader of the official opposition, CPC)

Nov/24/22 3:18:01 p.m.
Watch

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the best part of Thursday. It is the Thursday question. I just want to ask the government House leader if he can inform the members as to the business for the rest of this week and for next week as well. I would like to take the opportunity to make a couple of suggestions for government business. We had the Bank of Canada governor admit at committee that deficits fuel inflation, so I was wondering if there would be an opportunity for the government to introduce another fall economic update where it would lower its deficits. Also, I was wondering if the government might schedule a take-note debate at some point next week so that the House can really study the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that concludes, based on numbers that the government has provided, that the vast majority of Canadians pay far more in the carbon tax than anything they hope to receive in the form of a rebate.

167 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 3:19:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4 Bill C-29 Bill C-27 Bill C-26 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to ruin the best part of Thursday, although the opposition House leader and I may be alone in the opinion that this is the best part of Thursday. I am beginning to think, and I could be wrong in this supposition, that the hon. opposition House leader is making statements and not asking questions. However, in the event that there is a question, I would be happy to respond. First, it is not enough, of course, when we take a look down the list, that we have lower inflation rates than many countries, whether it is the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, the entire eurozone, Iceland, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Mexico, the United States or Ireland. I could go on and on. It does not matter that we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the world. That is cold comfort to somebody who is working hard and trying to pay the bills. That is why— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment. As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me. I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week. Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

448 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/24/22 3:21:44 p.m.
Watch

I was squirming in my chair when both House leaders were up. I just want to remind them of something. I know both of them have a bit of knowledge on procedure in the House, and the Thursday question is a question, not a statement. I know they did not do it on purpose. Well, I will let the jury out on that. I just wanted to remind them of that before we proceed to the point of order being put forward by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

90 words

Mr. John Nater

Nov/24/22 3:22:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the article, “It Being Thursday: The Weekly Business Statement in Minority and Majority Parliaments”, which does a great job, I might say, of outlining the evolution of the Thursday question and how wonderful statement of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was. Frankly, if we were to go back in history, to when the Liberals were last in power, we would find that it was a time when the Liberals used it as a partisan shenanigan. It was actually the Conservatives who were able to rein that in to have an excellent way of making statements, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did earlier today.

118 words

The Speaker

Nov/24/22 3:22:53 p.m.
Watch

I am sure the hon. member is not arguing for shenanigans to continue. I would not want that. I would want the question asked to find out what is going to happen from both sides so we can move on.

40 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Nov/24/22 3:24:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech that my colleague from Saint-Jean made earlier. I would like to ask her a simple question. There is a lot of talk about improving technology, and this bill talks about using audio conferencing. Video conferencing is relevant, but what does she think about the possibility of using audio conferencing only?

58 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Nov/24/22 3:24:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, the issue as to whether it should be expanded was raised by the Barreau du Québec in the brief it submitted when debate began on this bill. I understand that audio conferencing can be part of the solution in exceptional circumstances when video is not allowed, but it must be interpreted very narrowly. That is why I welcome the fact that the law will be reviewed in three years' time by an independent committee and in five years' time by a parliamentary committee, to see whether it is actually working and whether procedural safeguards are being maintained, which the courts may be called upon to do. Furthermore, we could see the law evolve when it comes into force, particularly in relation to procedural safeguards and fairness. Perhaps this will be one of the sections of the law that will not hold up at that time. It remains to be seen.

154 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Nov/24/22 3:25:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague feels, like I do, that reducing court backlogs is so important that this bill should have been introduced much earlier in this parliamentary sitting, and whether she could share her thoughts with the House as to why that was not the case.

50 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Nov/24/22 3:25:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his question. In the House, we have often talked about the fact that when the government called elections, many good bills died on the Order Paper. When my constituents tell me that elections are expensive, I tell them to consider how much more expensive they really are when they are triggered unexpectedly and negate all the work accomplished in the House. That said, with regard to reducing backlogs, I do not believe that this bill will have miraculous results. We also have to take that into consideration. We are doing things piecemeal, and it should not be seen as a magic solution. Even though Bill S‑4 is being studied, we must not stop doing the work that needs to be done on other parts of the Criminal Code to reduce court backlogs. There is much work to be done, and Bill S‑4 does not address everything.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Nov/24/22 3:27:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. What we are trying to do here is improve the legal system as a whole. In this particular case, the issue is connectivity. I would like my colleague to comment on the problem of judicial vacancies, internal problems at the Parole Board and, of course, the existence and use of the “Liberalist”.

63 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Nov/24/22 3:27:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question. I did touch on that in my speech. Connectivity is one interesting aspect. One of the downsides I see is the emergence of regional disparities. Some people may be required to come to court to testify in person because of poor connectivity in the region. Conversely, people who live some distance away may be pressured to communicate via audio conference and testify by video conference on the grounds that it is easier for them to do so remotely even though they might prefer to do it in person. Either scenario poses a risk of unequal treatment. This is one of the important factors that the House and perhaps the independent commissions will have to study. The Barreau du Québec also raised the issue in its recommendations.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 3:28:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, before question period, the member made reference to facial expressions and other things that may be lost in a virtual setting. Would she not agree that those types of considerations would be taken into account in situations where they might be of concern to a defence lawyer or the Crown attorney?

53 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Nov/24/22 3:28:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, we cannot take something into account if we have no knowledge of it. Unfortunately, when people testify by video conference, we do not have a 360-degree view of what is happening, much like when we operate by video conference here in the House. It is not just about people's facial expressions. They might be shuffling their feet, looking nervous, tapping their foot or passing a note to their lawyer. It could also be about how the reaction of the entire room, about seeing how a witness reacts when they hear another witness or when they see what is happening in the courtroom. We get information from more than just what we see framed on a screen. A number of factors are involved. Some information could be lost, and this too must be analyzed by the committees. As I was saying, there may be a risk that lawyers could agree at the start to proceed by video conference, and that during the proceedings, they realize that the procedural safeguards are not being upheld and they must return to an in-person format. At that point, there would be less efficiency rather than more. I am wondering what would happen if the consent to proceed by video conference were revoked. I hope that will be studied as well.

220 words

All Topics